Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2004 17:25:44 +0200 From: Sebastian Schulze Struchtrup <sebastian@struchtrup.de> To: Frank Laszlo <laszlof@vonostingroup.com> Cc: FreeBSD Ports <ports@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Re: alternative options for ports Message-ID: <416E9A78.80305@struchtrup.de> In-Reply-To: <416E891E.8070003@vonostingroup.com> References: <416C0DE8.3000004@struchtrup.com> <416C35A5.4040703@vonostingroup.com> <20041013123840.GB1301@FreeBSD.org> <20041013193432.GA53895@hub.freebsd.org> <416DAB52.5070404@struchtrup.com> <416DAD75.7000504@vonostingroup.com> <416DB213.3020708@struchtrup.com> <20041014095355.GA61134@elendil.ru> <20041014135041.GB4625@iib.unsam.edu.ar> <416E891E.8070003@vonostingroup.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Frank Laszlo wrote: > That way a user could just type something like 'make listoptions' and > it will give a nice list of build options > for a specific port. Anyone have any feedback on this? I think this would be nice. For users who scare of looking into Makefiles as well as for others who do not. It is not required to have, but nice. With a standard framework for options, this list could be generated automatically (Regardless of using the menu-based config of not) and would not require a separate file. But this would require all ports to use this and a global switch to disable the menu-based config for those who don't like it. As someone other has told us (I've seen this too, somewhere) this is implemented by a few ports, but rather with pre-everything and not as a separate target. But I think there is a port which defines a separate target, like show-options. Don't know which one. Regards Sebastian
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?416E9A78.80305>